Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Guest

Discussion of upsetting incidents

Featured Posts

17 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

Does that make "darkie" an acceptable term?

What does “acceptable” mean? It depends on who you are. I have a new tenant in my flat, he is Chinese (I think, or maybe S Korean) and I had cause to visit the flat to fix the washing machine. I couldn’t help noticing his toothpaste in the bathroom, which was a brand I had seen when I lived in the Far East about 38 years ago. I wasn’t sure if it would still exist, but obviously it does. The brand is “Darkie Toothpaste” and the logo is of a black man’s face with beaming smile and brilliant white teeth.

 

Did I find that “offensive”? No, of course not. How could one be offended by a tube of toothpaste! It was not intended to be offensive and clearly only might be in our woke western puritanical world. If I were a black person I don’t really see why I would find it offensive, but then I don’t have a victim mentality.

 

In you case, you were being offended on someone else’s behalf without actually asking them whether they were offended.

 

My main discriminator is whether the word/phrase was issued with the sole intent of offending/upsetting some specific person. If so, that is nasty but of course the only person responsible for that is the utterer. I would support a request from the recipient for the term to be removed and the perpetrator sanctioned. But I would not presume to take up that cudgel just to bolster my own virtue.

Edited by nicknorman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, nicknorman said:

What does “acceptable” mean? It depends on who you are. I have a new tenant in my flat, he is Chinese (I think, or maybe S Korean) and I had cause to visit the flat to fix the washing machine. I couldn’t help noticing his toothpaste in the bathroom, which was a brand I had seen when I lived in the Far East about 38 years ago. I wasn’t sure if it would still exist, but obviously it does. The brand is “Darkie Toothpaste” and the logo is of a black man’s face with beaming smile and brilliant white teeth.

 

Did I find that “offensive”? No, of course not. How could one be offended by a tube of toothpaste! It was not intended to be offensive and clearly only might be in our woke western puritanical world. If I were a black person I don’t really see why I would find it offensive, but then I don’t have a victim mentality.

 

In you case, you were being offended on someone else’s behalf without actually asking them whether they were offended.

 

My main discriminator is whether the word/phrase was issued with the sole intent of offending/upsetting some specific person. If so, that is nasty but of course the only person responsible for that is the utterer. I would support their request for the term to be removed and the perpetrator sanctioned. But I would not presume to take up that cudgel just to bolster my own virtue.

No, I was offended for myself. The term used was "whitey" used as a derogatory term which I last heard spat into my face in the course of a racially aggravated assault. Experimentally I then used "darkie" myself and was duly abused for doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

What does “acceptable” mean? It depends on who you are. I have a new tenant in my flat, he is Chinese (I think, or maybe S Korean) and I had cause to visit the flat to fix the washing machine. I couldn’t help noticing his toothpaste in the bathroom, which was a brand I had seen when I lived in the Far East about 38 years ago. I wasn’t sure if it would still exist, but obviously it does. The brand is “Darkie Toothpaste” and the logo is of a black man’s face with beaming smile and brilliant white teeth.

 

Did I find that “offensive”? No, of course not. How could one be offended by a tube of toothpaste! It was not intended to be offensive and clearly only might be in our woke western puritanical world. If I were a black person I don’t really see why I would find it offensive, but then I don’t have a victim mentality.

 

In you case, you were being offended on someone else’s behalf without actually asking them whether they were offended.

 

My main discriminator is whether the word/phrase was issued with the sole intent of offending/upsetting some specific person. If so, that is nasty but of course the only person responsible for that is the utterer. I would support their request for the term to be removed and the perpetrator sanctioned. But I would not presume to take up that cudgel just to bolster my own virtue.

Did it ever occur to you that folks with a victim mentality might have good reason for that.  Reason which you don't have, and could probably not understand anyway?

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

I once reported a racist term that I found offensive and was told that I shouldn't be offended. That's someone (me) who read it and was offended, not a hypothetical person who might be offended.

 

I was once called a nasty horrid name in open forum, and Athy refused to delete it, because he thought the nasty horrid insult was TRUE!!!

 

😥

 

  • Haha 1
  • Horror 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sir Nibble said:

No, I was offended for myself. The term used was "whitey" used as a derogatory term which I last heard spat into my face in the course of a racially aggravated assault. Experimentally I then used "darkie" myself and was duly abused for doing so.

Well if you were offended by being called a whitey, I think you need to get out more. Suffering an assault and being spat at is very nasty. Being called a whitey is ... true, isn’t it? It is only derogatory if you think there is something wrong with being white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sir Nibble said:

No, I was offended for myself. The term used was "whitey" used as a derogatory term which I last heard spat into my face in the course of a racially aggravated assault. Experimentally I then used "darkie" myself and was duly abused for doing so.

Ah, it's the conflicting terminology.

 

Surely "darkie" should only be used in response to "lightie".

 

This suggests that to "whitey" you should have used "brownie".

 

Then only the Scouts would get cross!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, doratheexplorer said:

Did it ever occur to you that folks with a victim mentality might have good reason for that.  Reason which you don't have, and could probably not understand anyway?

Occasionally yes, but mostly no. I am a homosexual bloke who often has to suffer jibes and comments. Mostly they are meant in fun, which is fine. I mostly embrace them because to do so is to disempower those words. If I got all “victim” every time I heard them, I would be, well, a victim! Trying to control the use of potentially offensive words simply gives them more power, which obviously is counter-productive.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thread is on "upsetting incidents" - so taking that theme I'd suggest any protocol (note, protocol, not "rules") relates to these and these alone.

 

At a personal level I found the immediate reference to the Manchester pusher tiresome rather than offensive, just "why?", if you've nothing to say then say nothing

 

When we are commenting on a death on the waterways, a place many of us regard as home whether or not we live afloat it may pay to be sensitive - "Is it true, is it necessary, is it kind" - this protocol need not be applied to the merits of composting toilets, the ascent of Wigan locks, or whether the prince of Elbonia should be given an audience with Rod Stewart.

 

I recall about ten years ago a drowning was reported on here and it turned out the unfortunate sole was on his way home from visiting a forum members  - jokes would have been very unfortunate, but it had a wider impact as well, as one other member (me) was dealing with the aftermath of a similar incident at the time. It's not just those directly affected, but those who have "been there" in other tragedies. 

 

Death affects a lot of people in different ways, and it pays to be a little bit circumspect before cracking jokes about it on what is a public forum.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

The thread is on "upsetting incidents" - so taking that theme I'd suggest any protocol (note, protocol, not "rules") relates to these and these alone.

 

At a personal level I found the immediate reference to the Manchester pusher tiresome rather than offensive, just "why?", if you've nothing to say then say nothing

 

When we are commenting on a death on the waterways, a place many of us regard as home whether or not we live afloat it may pay to be sensitive - "Is it true, is it necessary, is it kind" - this protocol need not be applied to the merits of composting toilets, the ascent of Wigan locks, or whether the prince of Elbonia should be given an audience with Rod Stewart.

 

I recall about ten years ago a drowning was reported on here and it turned out the unfortunate sole was on his way home from visiting a forum members  - jokes would have been very unfortunate, but it had a wider impact as well, as one other member (me) was dealing with the aftermath of a similar incident at the time. It's not just those directly affected, but those who have "been there" in other tragedies. 

 

Death affects a lot of people in different ways, and it pays to be a little bit circumspect before cracking jokes about it on what is a public forum.  

I would've normally just given a quiet greenie but as I can't - Well said, and with your usual wisdom and kindness. :) 

 

  • Greenie 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

Ah, it's the conflicting terminology.

 

Surely "darkie" should only be used in response to "lightie".

 

This suggests that to "whitey" you should have used "brownie".

 

Then only the Scouts would get cross!

I would be offended by this but I’ve skipped straight to outraged as it saves time. 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

It can be odd.  I suppose the stolen boat threads are often started by the owner or someone on their behalf.  So they can be challenged.  It's tricky though, and moderating forums like this is an inexact science.  However, a death, whether accidental or deliberate is a tragedy.  Both for the individual and for friends/family.  That deserves consideration.

I totally agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

It can be odd.  I suppose the stolen boat threads are often started by the owner or someone on their behalf.  So they can be challenged...  It's tricky though, and moderating forums like this is an inexact science.  However, a death, whether accidental or deliberate is a tragedy. 

 

I disagree entirely, in the interests of fairplay, human rights and non existent snowflakes in the mildest Winter in history, I believe we should be a bit more thorough.

 

Forum Rules 19.3b .On the forum being informed of a death either by direct link or rumour(even from a trusted source with more than 5000 posts), care should be taken to ensure that original death certificates, autopsy findings and several jpg's of body parts images are requested before accepting the fact.

 

Other near death and gory happenings should be highlighted by a R certificate banner in bright red, similar to the Political threads, so forum members can steer clear if easily upset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mad thing about "virtue signalling" is that if I spell out the good things I've done in life that affirms the label, because it should be secret. If I don't, but merely express on line my desire for kindness, that makes me a virtue signaller, because I've done no good in real life. Catch 22.

The most ridiculous accusation was against Wanted who I know personally and has spent his career helping young people to get their lives on track.

Edited by Ange
  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Ange said:

Thank you. It's posts like yours that stop me walking away from the forum.

I place a huge value on freedom of speech, but such freedom comes with responsibility to use that freedom wisely and do no harm

I know I can react passionately when I feel strongly about a subject but I hope I never come across as nasty or spiteful. If I do I apologise unreservedly.

No, it would be nice/convenient if it did but it doesn't. Freedom of speech is absolute or it is nothing.

 

I know this is hard - don't think it's any easier for me but in the end it's true. 

 

Some people will exercise responsibility, some won't, some will share my views and some will have views which are absolutely repugnant to me. Either they can freely share these or they cannot, in the later case, who decides? I would only trust one person and since it can't be me, I would rather have free speech but then it has to be free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, frahkn said:

No, it would be nice/convenient if it did but it doesn't. Freedom of speech is absolute or it is nothing.

 

I know this is hard - don't think it's any easier for me but in the end it's true. 

 

Some people will exercise responsibility, some won't, some will share my views and some will have views which are absolutely repugnant to me. Either they can freely share these or they cannot, in the later case, who decides? I would only trust one person and since it can't be me, I would rather have free speech but then it has to be free.

Yep it's a tough call. I think we both agree there's no black an white in this issue, but the fact we can discuss it is good.

ETA I remember when I was a girl in the 1970s witnessing a young black girl being verbally attacked by a group of boys. At the time I was too young and scared of the boys to defend her but I'll never forget it. Is that what freedom of speech is about? I judge it to be wrong, others will feel that's ok.

There lies the lines we all need to draw, different lines for different folks.

I'm haunted by the memory of that little girl, head bowed, accepting that as her lot in life.

Edited by Ange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Ange said:

Yep it's a tough call. I think we both agree there's no black an white in this issue, but the fact we can discuss it is good.

ETA I remember when I was a girl in the 1970s witnessing a young black girl being verbally attacked by a group of boys. At the time I was too young and scared of the boys to defend her but I'll never forget it. Is that what freedom of speech is about? I judge it to be wrong, others will feel that's ok. Are you saying they were entitled to verbally attack her?

Hell yes, it's hard.

 

I imagine that they were saying things which would appal either one of us but which as you say, a minority of truly stupid people would feel is ok. The problem is, even if there was a way to prevent them saying those things (and generally, I can't think of such  were a way) there is no way to prevent them thinking exactly the same in private. No, they were not "entitled" but they were doing it and short of the arrival of some of the girl's brothers, they had freedom of speech.

 

I'm a bit conflicted about all of this but on balance I distrust the modern "hate speech" legislation and, even more, the "no platforming" attitude of many groups. Either you believe in the strength of your argument or you do not.

 

Anyway, I agree that the fact we can discuss the issue is a good thing but it's highly nuanced argument, more suited to face to face conversation than to text.

 

IMHO of course.🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, frahkn said:

Hell yes, it's hard.

 

I imagine that they were saying things which would appal either one of us but which as you say, a minority of truly stupid people would feel is ok. The problem is, even if there was a way to prevent them saying those things (and generally, I can't think of such  were a way) there is no way to prevent them thinking exactly the same in private. No, they were not "entitled" but they were doing it and short of the arrival of some of the girl's brothers, they had freedom of speech.

 

I'm a bit conflicted about all of this but on balance I distrust the modern "hate speech" legislation and, even more, the "no platforming" attitude of many groups. Either you believe in the strength of your argument or you do not.

 

Anyway, I agree that the fact we can discuss the issue is a good thing but it's highly nuanced argument, more suited to face to face conversation than to text.

 

IMHO of course.🙂

Sorry my previous post crossed post with yours. it's a complicated discussion and I'd love to discuss it over a pint or two one day 🙂

Nn Frank x

Take care - you're a good man x

Edited by Ange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Sir Nibble said:

Does that make "darkie" an acceptable term?

It depends on the fashion of the time. At one time darkie was widely used, without any offense intended or suffered by the recipient of the word. Other such words existed; Paki, Chinky etc. etc. Then someone came along, most likely someone not offended themselves by the words, but someone who decided that others were. The words were deemed racist and unacceptable and replaced by words or phrases deemed non racist and non offensive. The earliest one I remember is coloured, this replaced black, which was deemed offensive. Coloured didn't last long, 10 years at most, before black became acceptable again, before the modern day term was born: 'person of colour'. This isn't particularly descriptive and probably won't last long, given that many people with the darker shades amongst 'people of colour' are quite proud that they are black, and probably find it offensive that white people group them  together with everyone else who is non white.

 

In summary, it's a bit of a merry go round of words and phrases and you'd better keep up with the latest fashion, should you wish to avoid being condemned as a racist. 

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ange said:

The mad thing about "virtue signalling" is that if I spell out the good things I've done in life that affirms the label, because it should be secret. If I don't, but merely express on line my desire for kindness, that makes me a virtue signaller, because I've done no good in real life. Catch 22.

The most ridiculous accusation was against Wanted who I know personally and has spent his career helping young people to get their lives on track.

No that isn’t really what virtue signalling is, in my book anyway. I gave a specific example of Tony brooks doing a “good thing” and telling us about it. Definitely not virtue signalling. If you particularly wanted to spell out the good things you’ve done in your life, it wouldn’t really be VS, although it might seem a bit odd.

 

In Wanted’s case, it certainly wasn’t the life dedicated to helping young people that irked, that was very commendable.  It was his intolerance to any views/way of thinking other than his own, and justifying it by citing his “good deeds” to indicate his moral superiority and thus the entitled winner of the argument regardless of rationality or other points of view. He wanted to silence any alternative views. Classic VS.

Edited by nicknorman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, frahkn said:

 < snip > Freedom of speech is absolute or it is nothing. < snip >

OK.

 

Feel free to shout 'FIRE' next time you are in a crowded theatre.

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

 

 

In Wanted’s case, it certainly wasn’t the life dedicated to helping young people that irked, that was very commendable.  It was his intolerance to any views/way of thinking other than his own, and justifying it by citing his “good deeds” to indicate his moral superiority and thus the entitled winner of the argument regardless of rationality or other points of view. He wanted to silence any alternative views. Classic VS.

Which is not something I recognize in wanted tbh, approach with a rational and considered view opposed to his and a decent conversation can be had and frankly opinions can shift.

 

The problem is how people present on  the forum, sometimes the wind up merchants sour any real rational discussion,  plus of course the lack of any body language to help judge the tone can make misjudgment of peoples meaning easy.

 

Which is why it's alway worth taking a breath before posting and reviewing the content, which is not something I am always successful in doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.